Tate's Catch v. Dez's Non-catch Catch

[DallasCowboys2080]

I don't get the uproar over the tate catch. He had it a while before he fumbled it. It was already a td to me. I think it was the right call.

"Watching Coleman, Pereira and Blandino, all rules experts, give different interpretations only further shows that the NFL rulebook is indecipherable ..."


the problem is interpretations of the rule. it's all subjective.

no consistency on objectivity.

 

[The Natural]

After the fumble fiasco in Seattle the league owed them one, only explanation.

 

[Irvin88_4life]

After the fumble fiasco in Seattle the league owed them one, only explanation.

That makes the most sense. Totally agree with that and glad you pointed it out as I had forgotten about it

 

[Kevinicus]

If the receiver has control, and passes the plane into the endzone, isn't that immediately a TD, and the play is dead at that point? Both look like TD'S to me.

They have to have possession. Control doesn't equal possession.

 

[Seven]

Bolded wording is all that needs to be said. He's the one common denominator in all of this mess. Once he reversed the ruling on the field of Dez's catch, he placed himself in a very bad spot going forward. It's only going to get worse. Fans, in general, do not know what is/isn't a "catch" any more. For that matter, the players, coaches, and officials don't, either. When will Blandino ever be held accountable for this mess?

None of them are held accountable. Ever.

That's the issue.

Good 'ol boy network if I've ever seen one.

 

[romothesavior]

They have to have possession. Control doesn't equal possession.

The only situation I've ever seen where this distinction matters is in "joint control" situations. Not sure how this distinction without a difference matters here.

 

[percyhoward]

Once he gets that second foot down, it's in Blandino's hands.

After two feet down, all he has to do is hold onto the ball long enough to become a runner. How long that is ultimately depends on the judgment of the league's head of officiating, who oversees all reviews. Blandino said he had it long enough to become a runner. So he's a runner. Touchdown.

Even under last year's rules, the "football move" would not have applied to Tate's catch, as it occurred in the end zone, where no football move is needed. Last year, the question would have been, "Did he hold onto the ball long enough to make a football move, thus becoming a runner?" while this year it's shortened to "Did he hold onto the ball long enough to become a runner?" That makes sense in the end zone, where no football move is needed, and it applies to the famous Calvin Johnson play.

Dez's catch did not occur in the end zone, so under last year's rules, they did have to look for a football move. They said he didn't make enough of one, because he didn't reach with two hands, or extend his arm toward the goal line. Neither of those explanations makes sense, of course.

 

[CowboyStar88]

Personally I think the NFL went overboard trying to justify the reason why Dez's was not a catch, and that snowballed into the adjustment into the catch rule for this year. It's become comical now because not a single person knows what a catch is. All they had to do is admit they made a mistake changed the rule for the better instead of making it more complicated because they don't want to admit a mistake. I don't understand why they did this at all.

 

[Wayne02]

We gotta let the Dez catch/non catch go. Time to move on.

 

[LandryFan]

We gotta let the Dez catch/non catch go. Time to move on.

You're free to do so.

 

[TheCount]

You mean, other than the fact that the plays are completely different?

The fact of the matter is that they need to just make a really clear and simple rule that applies all over the field, not just on the vernal equinox or when Pluto is alignment with Jupiter. They need a plain speak rule that is easy for everyone to understand, even if it changes things.

However, under the current rules - that is in fact a touchdown, as ridiculous as that seems.

 

[Wayne02]

You're free to do so.

I know I am, and so are you when you decide to stop living in the past.

 

[texbumthelife]

The ONLY way to fix this is, you have to maintain control of the ball throughout the catch. There is no "football move" or any other qualifier. If you drop the ball at any point, it's incomplete.

 

[CowboyGil]

Looks like he took 3 steps with the ball by which time it had broken the plane; so TD. The ball came out after the TD so it's moot. Seems more like Randle's TD against NO than Dez's play (Turnover? TD?).

 

[TwoCentPlain]

You can throw in the Atlanta TD by the RB during the Washington game two weeks ago. That was called a TD on the field and all fans agreed it was a TD. Yet it was unbelievably overturned on instant replay.

It is hilarious watching them pull rules out of their rear ends.

Can you imagine if penalties were reviewable. It would be humorous watching the refs and the league come up with explanations.

 

[gimmesix]

To be fair, Tate didn't go to the ground (or start to go) until after the ball was out of his hands and he tried to reach for it and tripped. This would all be after the point he would have been deemed a runner (apparently). Nobody is very clear on exactly when someone becomes a runner anymore, it's whatever the particular official wants it to be.

That's the main difference in the plays. Tate fumbled after crossing the goal line but we never going to the ground. Dez established the same amount of control before going to the ground, but because he did go to the ground with the ball in his hands, he had to sustain control.

The rule puts an extra burden on receivers going to the ground, which is the only difference between the two plays.

 

[iceberg]

This is a touchdown:

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/10/gol...ption-bears-lions-explanation-nfl-rules-catch

But this is an incomplete pass:

http://thebiglead.com/2015/01/11/de...h-overturned-by-referees-cowboys-get-screwed/

Discuss.

for the love god why?

 

[Kevinicus]

The only situation I've ever seen where this distinction matters is in "joint control" situations. Not sure how this distinction without a difference matters here.

Control with one foot down is not possession, thus not a catch. Control is a necessary component of possession. It's a very clear distinction on every play.

 

[DallasCowboys2080]

I know I am, and so are you when you decide to stop living in the past.

blandino and crew use the past in their rules for present games. they meet in the summer to hash some things out involving what happened in the past.

fans are just discussing things they laid down in the past based on interpretations. if we didnt have a past we couldnt discuss the present.

 

[cowboys2233]

The rules are beyond human comprehension.

I'd rather let the refs just make a judgment based on the ball being in control by the receiver like the old days. Today's rules are making it worse, not better.

The "going to the ground" clause is just stupid and unnecessary.

So stupid, so unnecessary, it makes you think...

These subjective rules that leave everything completely open to interpretation don't make the game better, but they DO cause controversy. And I wouldn't put it past the owners to look at said controversy as a good thing because it generates more headlines for the league. It's the only thing I can come up with. Anyone with an ounce of sense would see that these rules are bound to cause issues.